Followers

"No, everyone is born Christian. Only later in life do people choose to stray from Jesus and worship satan instead. Atheists have the greatest "cover" of all, they insist they believe in no god yet most polls done and the latest research indicates that they are actually a different sect of Muslims."
CARM.ORG

Friday, December 12, 2008

Carl and Raylene Worthington are charged with negligent homicide for the death of their 2 year old daughter. She passed away from pneumonia when her genius parent's decided to "pray" the sick out of her.This story is nothing new. But it gets kinda exciting if you read their defense attorneys' motion to dismiss the indictment. This is the most incoherent rambling piece of legal douche baggery that I have read in a LONG time. This stellar legal team argues the following:1 - These two cannot be prosecuted because they didn't know it was illegal to let their child die.2 - The founding father's of the Oregon constitution did not like medical doctors, so therefore, they would not have required anyone to take their child to one.3 - That the state totally promised not to prosecute them!4 - And that there should just be a law that says a parent has to notify the state when their kid get's sick and this would prevent killings in the future.That last one you have to really think about now. They actually argue that because DHS exists and that someone COULD have made a neglect report (resulting in an emergency guardianship I presume) and that the state could then have taken the child to get treatment, that they can't be prosecuted. And if the court doesn't believe that will save future kids from their parents, that the court should make it a requirement that the parent's themselves notify the state when their kid is sick. Because that is WAAAYYYY less intrusive then just taking your kids to the fucking doctor.The defense attorney's cite every case possible to argue their many varied defenses. Umm...except the ones ON POINT. Such as, maybe that the Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue?

In Prince v. Massachusetts (1944), the U.S. Supreme Court unmistakably declared that parents do not have the right, in the name of religion, to endanger the lives of their children:

The family itself is not beyond regulation in the public interest, as against a claim of religious liberty. And neither the rights of religion nor the rights of parenthood are beyond limitation…The right to practice religion freely does not include the right to expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill-health or death…

Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they can make that choice for themselves.

More recently in 1972, in Wisconsin v. Yoder, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled:

The power of the parent, even when linked to a free exercise claim, may be subjected to limitation under Prince if it appears that parental decision will jeopardize the health or safety of the child.

In 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court made it absolutely clear in Oregon Department of Human Resources v. Smith that first amendment guarantees of religious freedom do not constitutionally require states to grant religious exemptions to child neglect and manslaughter laws. (Religious exemptions to medical care for children in most states are exemptions to child neglect statutes; proponents of exemptions have also claimed that such exemptions also extend to manslaughter laws.) The first amendment does not grant parents the right to let their children suffer and die because of their refusal, on religious grounds, to obtain essential medical care. The court ruled that to allow religious exemption to a wide variety of criminal laws would make it impossible for our society to function, and

...would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind - ranging from…the payment of taxes, to health and safety regulations, such as manslaughter and child neglect laws, compulsory vaccination laws, drug laws and traffic laws…

Maybe it's just me, but if I was writing the reply brief I would be pretty tempted to argue for sanctions on this one.Oh yeah, they end their argument with a Bush quote...